The Fourteenth Amendment was never legally ratified. For life and liberty, David Macko
----- Original Message ----- From: "Melissa Lakewood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 4:18 PM Subject: [Libertarian] There Should Be No "Civil Rights" >From http://melissasliberty.blogspot.com/ Copyright 2006. Permission is granted to forward and repost, as long as you use the article in its entirety with this reference at the top. There Should Be No "Civil Rights" Ok, the title of this post is obviously going to shock and outrage some people, but please read on before passing judgement. I think the term "civil rights" is one of the most misused terms in our language today. civÆil rightsÆ, (often caps.) 1. rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and certain Congressional acts, esp. as applied to an individual or a minority group. 2. the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality extended to blacks. [1715-25] -civÆil-rightsÆ, adj. - Random House Websters Unabridged Dictionary for Windows, Version 3 The reason this country had to add "civil rights" is that when the United States was first founded, some people were left out of having their rights recognized, specifically women and the racial minorities of that time. One of the first things that comes to mind is voting. But what if we went back and rewrote the Constitution from scratch in a modern context? Should voting even be called a "civil right"? When we examine the essence of rights, there's are really basically only one kind of rightful rights, and those would more properly be termed "human rights", things that humans should rightfully be able to do. huÆman rightsÆ, fundamental rights, esp. those believed to belong to an individual and in whose exercise a government may not interfere, as the rights to speak, associate, work, etc. [1785-95] - Random House Websters Unabridged Dictionary for Windows, Version 3 The dictionary says fundamental because the right of women and racial minorities to vote, was not previously considered a fundamental human right, but in the context of modern times, shouldn't it be? "Men who deny individual rights cannot claim, defend or uphold any rights whatsoever. ... The liberals are guilty of the same contradiction, but in a different form. They advocate the sacrifice of all individual rights to unlimited majority rule - yet posture as defenders of the rights of minorities. But the smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand So if we were modernizing the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, why call the right to vote a "civil right" at all? And that's the basis of my claim that there should really be no such things as "civil rights", because legitimate human rights are really the only rights that are needed. Therefore Article 29 has been added to the Planetary Bill of Rights Project at http://planetarybillofrights.org/ Article 29 All free adults shall have the right to vote in their local, state and national elections, but no issue involving the initiation of force shall be on any ballot. **Except to repeal laws which sanction it. DM** ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
